April 29 weekend of Sleuthiness

[cityslick]

What I saw was the judge telling him 'this isn't the place nor time to discuss this issue.' Do you have a specific site to post where proper paperwork was presented to the court prior to trial to obtain funds for experts and that motion was denied???

You do understand the defense is being paid by the taxpayers through the public defender and that they are limited to what funds they can obtain?

 

[Danielle59]

Ducks, sticks, earrings and necklaces prove nothing. We now know the ducks were not destroyed in a fight, JA was wrong about seeing them the day before. As far as the necklace goes, who wears an expensive diamond necklace to a pool with kids hanging all over them, I have seen pictures of the necklace it was not on a strong chain, could have easily broken in the pool and would have been gone forever, NC had enough smarts to know this, it is not on the HT picture, but the bathing suit appears on under the cover up; therefore, it is logical to conclude that she had been at the pool without the necklace, so HP is mistaken.

Now, let's talk about the earrings she never took off. Have any of you ever tried to sleep in post earrings? I have and I can tell you that you will take them off at night as the posts will stick in the back of your neck if you roll onto your side. My friends will also tell you I always wear my diamond earrings and they would be correct, but they are not with me at night when I take them off so I can sleep, I imagine NC did the same thing, also showering with them in is a dangerous bet as your hair can tangle in them and they can come off. So it makes sense that she always wore them and may even have jogged in them or the necklace, but no doubt she took them off from time to time. So the earrings, the necklace or lack thereof, does not indicate anything to anyone. No one can know what anyone else does when they are alone.

As far as the faint line around her neck, it is most likely there from the necklace when she wore it in the sun and the area it covered could not tan, IMO that is what you are seeing in the HT video, not the necklace. We do not have one piece of forensic evidence that ties BC to the crime.

There are several others with motive, means and opportunity, BC is not alone in this. The google search means nothing as the time stamps may or may not be invalid. Don't get me wrong I want NC's killer caught and brought to justice, I am just not sure we have the right person. If the CPD made mistakes in the investigation and they did admittedly so, no one is perfect, how then is it that BC can commit this crime and not leave a trace, he would have made a mistake as well. People keep bringing up the running shoes, if you go back and read the statements the running shoes even though they were two left shoes were not NC's size, her other pair of running shoes have never been recovered, so the Det. thinks she returned them, well there is nothing to indicate she did so. Lots of things are in boxes, maybe if we look, we will find the two right shoes, who knows.

Absolutely no proof of spoofed calls, again having the ability does not mean it happened and it would leave a trace somewhere on something, so far nothing has proven this did happen only that it did not. I am prefectly ready to eat crow if Cisco produces a router showing he made this spoof call and if they do I will gladly and readily admit he is guilty. At this point with nothing to go on, I am going to change my opinion get off of the fence and say, I believe Brad Cooper is not guilty.

Excellent Post. I am in total agreement.

 

[RaleighNative]

:seeya: Hi Boz....I hope you can live the rest of your career with the unethical choices you've made in this trial. I hope we aren't paying your salary any more and you can go be a defense lawyer. Your antics fit in very well with the perception of defense lawyers.

At least the female ADA (sorry forget her name) seems to be a class act.

Cummings meltdowns on Thursday really surprised me. He seems very slow to anger...maybe because he talks....so....slow. But did anyone else think the reason Cummings lost it is because he realized the state had no case????

 

[Danielle59]

IIRC, she had the remainder of the money she earned painting, after the paint and supplies were paid for. That was the money she used to purchase their part of the dinner that night.

So, if she had money, why was she calling BC every other minute of the day on Friday (slight embellishment, not much) asking him for money because she had none?

 

[Danielle59]

Yes, Brad's mother was the 'missing link' to all the questionable items. Strange, isn't it? The ducks, the necklace, and the phone. It was Brad the liars mom who handled or had possession of all of them.

Oddly, all of them were in the house while it was in CPDs custody and they found nothing.

 

[momof7]

So, if she had money, why was she calling BC every other minute of the day on Friday (slight embellishment, not much) asking him for money because she had none?

Just out of curiosity and nothing more, is it testimony from her friends saying she phoned repeatedly for the money or BC said that was what she was calling about? I have listened to original testimony from NC's friend and I don't recall? I will have to go back and watch the depo because I do believe BC addressed the calls?

NC also told family and friends that during her vacation with family she did not speak to BC at all, yet on avidavits, there were several calls from cited from her phone to his. He explained she asked for directions etc as she was lost? I understand that call log is not anything he could lie about, the content of the calls he could certainly lie about since no one can dispute that but the calls themselves were documented IIRC.

 

[cityslick]

Just out of curiosity and nothing more, is it testimony from her friends saying she phoned repeatedly for the money or BC said that was what she was calling about? I have listened to original testimony from NC's friend and I don't recall? I will have to go back and watch the depo because I do believe BC addressed the calls?

I don't know if it's ever been addressed. I know there has been speculation here that was the reason (money) she was calling but I haven't seen that testified too (or I can't remember).

 

[Danielle59]

Just out of curiosity and nothing more, is it testimony from her friends saying she phoned repeatedly for the money or BC said that was what she was calling about? I have listened to original testimony from NC's friend and I don't recall? I will have to go back and watch the depo because I do believe BC addressed the calls?

NC also told family and friends that during her vacation with family she did not speak to BC at all, yet on avidavits, there were several calls from cited from her phone to his. He explained she asked for directions etc as she was lost? I understand that call log is not anything he could lie about, the content of the calls he could certainly lie about since no one can dispute that but the calls themselves were documented IIRC.

I would say both.

 

[sunshine05]

At least the female ADA (sorry forget her name) seems to be a class act.

Cummings meltdowns on Thursday really surprised me. He seems very slow to anger...maybe because he talks....so....slow. But did anyone else think the reason Cummings lost it is because he realized the state had no case????

Yes, I think they are acting this way because they were arrogant enough to think they "had it in the bag" by parading all the "friends" out with stories of affairs and financial difficulties and necklaces and ducks and painting. Defense showed there is FAR more to this case than that. They clearly were unprepared and completely clueless about the technical aspects of the case. But they had over two years to prepare. It's clear defense took the time to learn the technical stuff. The state didn't think they had to, clearly that was a huge mistake and that is why they are scrambling now. I have no respect for any of them.

 

[Danielle59]

At least the female ADA (sorry forget her name) seems to be a class act.

Cummings meltdowns on Thursday really surprised me. He seems very slow to anger...maybe because he talks....so....slow. But did anyone else think the reason Cummings lost it is because he realized the state had no case????

Yes, I think they are acting this way because they were arrogant enough to think they "had it in the bag" by parading all the "friends" out with stories of affairs and financial difficulties and necklaces and ducks and painting. Defense showed there is FAR more to this case than that. They clearly were unprepared and completely clueless about the technical aspects of the case. But they had over two years to prepare. It's clear defense took the time to learn the technical stuff. The state didn't think they had to, clearly that was a huge mistake and that is why they are scrambling now. I have no respect for any of them.

Bottom line, they rushed to judgment, although they want us to think they did not, it appears that did not look at any other suspects, and basically you really have to wonder why and on what evidence they had him arrested. I bet the State is embarassed they took so much faith into the original calls and supposed facts they were given. They have to know this is making them all look like buffoons.

 

[RaleighNative]

Hi Gracielee! Even though we're on opposite sides of the fence, I've loved interacting with you on this forum.

I know you have very closely watched this entire case, and I know you are firmly BDI.

Could you please give explain to us why you firmly believe BDI at this point in the trial?

I'm NOT being snarky, and I won't rip apart any reply. I'm genuinely curious to get both sides, and perhaps that could give us some perspective on what jurors on each side of the fence may believe.

Thanks in advance!

 

[jrb0124]

Ducks, sticks, earrings and necklaces prove nothing. We now know the ducks were not destroyed in a fight, JA was wrong about seeing them the day before. As far as the necklace goes, who wears an expensive diamond necklace to a pool with kids hanging all over them, I have seen pictures of the necklace it was not on a strong chain, could have easily broken in the pool and would have been gone forever, NC had enough smarts to know this, it is not on the HT picture, but the bathing suit appears on under the cover up; therefore, it is logical to conclude that she had been at the pool without the necklace, so HP is mistaken. Now, let's talk about the earrings she never took off. Have any of you ever tried to sleep in post earrings? I have and I can tell you that you will take them off at night as the posts will stick in the back of your neck if you roll onto your side. My friends will also tell you I always wear my diamond earrings and they would be correct, but they are not with me at night when I take them off so I can sleep, I imagine NC did the same thing, also showering with them in is a dangerous bet as your hair can tangle in them and they can come off. So it makes sense that she always wore them and may even have jogged in them or the necklace, but no doubt she took them off from time to time. So the earrings, the necklace or lack thereof, does not indicate anything to anyone. No one can know what anyone else does when they are alone. As far as the faint line around her neck, it is most likely there from the necklace when she wore it in the sun and the area it covered could not tan, IMO that is what you are seeing in the HT video, not the necklace. We do not have one piece of forensic evidence that ties BC to the crime. There are several others with motive, means and opportunity, BC is not alone in this. The google search means nothing as the time stamps may or may not be invalid. Don't get me wrong I want NC's killer caught and brought to justice, I am just not sure we have the right person. If the CPD made mistakes in the investigation and they did admittedly so, no one is perfect, how then is it that BC can commit this crime and not leave a trace, he would have made a mistake as well. People keep bringing up the running shoes, if you go back and read the statements the running shoes even though they were two left shoes were not NC's size, her other pair of running shoes have never been recovered, so the Det. thinks she returned them, well there is nothing to indicate she did so. Lots of things are in boxes, maybe if we look, we will find the two right shoes, who knows. Absolutely no proof of spoofed calls, again having the ability does not mean it happened and it would leave a trace somewhere on something, so far nothing has proven this did happen only that it did not. I am prefectly ready to eat crow if Cisco produces a router showing he made this spoof call and if they do I will gladly and readily admit he is guilty. At this point with nothing to go on, I am going to change my opinion get off of the fence and say, I believe Brad Cooper is not guilty.

ditto...ditto...ditto, thank you. I couldn't have written this better.

re: the BBM section - if it couldbe proven BC spoofed the call I would be firmly in the guilty camp.

On the other hand, even if its is testified/evidenced simply that he had the 3825 in his house the night before, I still think he is NG. Why? The router/modem/phone SW was executed in Oct, well after JA&co had suggested to CPD that BC could have spoofed the call. This was not top secret info at the time, BC knew it. Any innocent person in their right mind would be less than cooperative with helping LE locate a piece of evidence that could implicate them in the State's theory.

 

[Kimster]

Some posts were removed and this is why:

1) Any complaint campaigns must go directly to Tricia. If you feel there needs to be one in this case, contact her for approval. Only SHE can post them. Per Tricia.

2) Don't say negative things about other posters, even in general. Period.

:tyou:

 

[macd]

We've been talking about whether or not the contents of the windows system event log should be admitted. The question is whether it properly falls under the scope of rebuttal. I Googled "scope of rebuttal testimony". On the first returned link, I found the following quote from an appellate ruling in federal court. (Maybe someone can find an example of case law from North Carolina that would be more applicable.) I quote it below, bolding two important points from the decision.

Generally, a district court must exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of presenting evidence with the goal that the presentation be effective for ascertaining the truth. Fed. R. Evid. 611(a). Evidence introduced on rebuttal serves to ‘rebut new evidence or new theories proffered in the defendant's case-in-chief,’ and is not limited by the fact that the plaintiff could have introduced the proffered evidence in his case-in-chief.

The district court has broad discretion to determine the scope of rebuttal in admitting evidence, and in this case it was clearly within the district court's discretion to admit the evidence in question. When Mr. Caraway raised the inference of misidentification through the testimony of the property clerk who described the items Mr. Caraway was wearing when he was booked, the government was entitled to introduce the jacket and shirt to rebut that inference. The Government did not have to negate the testimony of the property clerk in its case-in-chief and the district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the jacket and shirt into evidence to question the defense's theory of misidentification.

In this case, the appellate court upheld the admission of rebuttal evidence. The defense only made an inference to a theory, and the court let in new clothing evidence. That the rebuttal was broader than the inference and that the new evidence was late were both dismissed as arguments against admitting the evidence.

So, applying this ruling, for the windows system event log evidence:
It doesn't matter if this evidence is new.
It doesn't matter if this evidence is late.
It doesn't matter if this evidence does more or less than negate a statement or inference made in the defense case in chief.

It is proper to admit this evidence to rebut.

 

[macd]

CF was talking about his own network that he is hired to monitor and control. He was not called as an expert, given the task of pulling and then analyzing data. He was charged with pulling information from his own network. I haven't heard from him so I'm only going by the little snippet but it is my understanding that his primary role in this portion was taking the MAC address and matching it up with a particular router that had been in their inventory and is now unaccounted for. That doesn't require any level of expertise to match up a number.

Right, not an expert, so he won't be able to form any opinions.
He will only be able to say what he did, and what we saw.

I predict a lot of objections during his testimony.

 

[SleuthinNC]

We've been talking about whether or not the contents of the windows system event log should be admitted. The question is whether it properly falls under the scope of rebuttal. I Googled "scope of rebuttal testimony". On the first returned link, I found the following quote from an appellate ruling in federal court. (Maybe someone can find an example of case law from North Carolina that would be more applicable.) I quote it below, bolding two important points from the decision.



In this case, the appellate court upheld the admission of rebuttal evidence. The defense only made an inference to a theory, and the court let in new clothing evidence. That the rebuttal was broader than the inference and that the new evidence was late were both dismissed as arguments against admitting the evidence.

So, applying this ruling, for the windows system event log evidence:
It doesn't matter if this evidence is new.
It doesn't matter if this evidence is late.
It doesn't matter if this evidence does more or less than negate a statement or inference made in the defense case in chief.

It is proper to admit this evidence to rebut.

Sure if you disregard the initial assertion:

"Evidence introduced on rebuttal serves to ‘rebut new evidence or new theories proffered in the defendant's case-in-chief,’"

This evidence does not meet that initial criteria.

 

[macd]

Sure if you disregard the initial assertion:

"Evidence introduced on rebuttal serves to ‘rebut new evidence or new theories proffered in the defendant's case-in-chief,’"

This evidence does not meet that initial criteria.

The judge disagrees with you.

I submit that by discussing the size of the router, the defense is making an inference that it was too big to be removed from the house while BC was under surveillance. The prosecution certainly made the inference that the FXO was small enough to be removed from the house.

The evidence that the router was in the house rebuts the inference that the router was too big to be removed from the house.

 

[SleuthinNC]

Again as I have said many times, data leaves trails. If the prosecution brings this evidence in they need to show that he actually made the calls. If the address of 3825 shows up in the arp table on the pc then the 3825 was connected to the LAN and not just via console cable. If it was on the LAN have they looked at the other router to see what was going on there? have they located a different switch? What other data connections were made to the 3825?

None of that is information that would come off the PC so not really understanding the extent of the investigation that is being done.

 

[johnfear]

Sure if you disregard the initial assertion:

"Evidence introduced on rebuttal serves to ‘rebut new evidence or new theories proffered in the defendant's case-in-chief,’"

This evidence does not meet that initial criteria.

It's not just negating a case in chief point.

It's on the heels of the defense negating in pattern form the foundation of a large deal of the pros case in chief in an untimely manner that may take more time than allowed to in this case. The cross and rebuttal of the evidence may be pointlessly prejudicial and not as probative as it seems from first glance.

 

[SleuthinNC]

The judge disagrees with you.

I submit that by discussing the size of the router, the defense is making an inference that it was too big to be removed from the house while BC was under surveillance. The prosecution certainly made the inference that the FXO was small enough to be removed from the house.

The evidence that the router was in the house rebuts the inference that the router was too big to be removed from the house.

That last statement doesn't even make sense. There is still no evidence that the router was removed from the house if it was ever in the house and it is still too big to put in your pocket.